RAM PARSHAD Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is against the judgments and decrees of both the courts below whereby suit of the appellant (plaintiff) for a declaration that his establishment was not covered under the provisions of the Employees State insurance Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that he was proprietor of M/s Delhi Steel and Foundry Works which establishment at no point of time employed more than eighteen employees. Plaintiff said therefore, that he was no covered under the Act as the Act applied only to establishments or factories which employed twenty or more persons at any point of time preceding twelve months. Plaintiff said his establishment was not required to be registered under the Act and provisions of that Act would not apply to him. Plaintiff said he had come to know that his establishment was being covered under the Act and that Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') defendant No. I, had in fact directed District Collector and the District Collection Officer, Delhi, respondents 2 and 4 respectively, to recover the employees' and employer's contribution under the Act from the plaintiff as arrears of land revenue. The plaintiff therefore, wanted a restraint order against the defendants from recovering any such demand. This, in short, is the case of the plaintiff and be, therefore, sought declaration that his establishment was not covered under the Act and that provisions of the Act were not applicable to him and he also sought injunction restraining the defendants from taking any proceedings under the Act or to recover any amount from the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed that in case it was held that his establishment was covered under the Act, then he be asked to pay only that amount of contribution under the Act which was lawful and that ex-parte assessment against him be set aside.

(3.) The Corporation, which was the principal contesting defendant, filed its written statement and raised various objections to jurisdiction of a civil court.